james-
Erik, /you/ way overstepped the mark. 172 acted to
stop an edit war through
protecting a page, a page he had not contributed one word to but which one
user was attempting to put an incoherent POV anti-catholic ramble.
I believe 172 acted in good faith. I never said that he did not. I also
think that because of the very strong POV he expressed prior to protecting
the page, he was not the right person to do so.
It may
well have been inadvisable to for /him/ to do that, but he was dealing with
an impossible situation, where there were calls for someone /urgently/ to
act
Oh, come on. It's not like something could have been permanently broken.
In fact, this wasn't even an edit war in the traditional sense -- edits
were changed from one revision to the other, instead of alternating
between two versions. Even if it was urgent (which it wasn't), 172 could
have asked another sysop to do it -- we have 100 administrators on the
English wiki.
1. treating a user who acted in good faith in an
emergency circumstances as
if he was the guilty one when he believed he had the support of people like
Mav in his actions?
I don't remember having treated 172 as "guilty". The problem is that 172
did not acknowledge our policies after I asked him to do so, and did not
want to work within that framework. If he had said "OK, next time I'll ask
another sysop", I would not have said another peep on the matter.
2. For continually ignoring his attempts to clarify
the matter?
How so?
3. For /you/ then leaving a sensitive page on which
there was an edit war,
wide open to more heavy POVing for someone who openly admits his
anti-catholic agenda, including making comments that maybe catholics want
their children abused?
I feel that Nostrum can be worked with instead of immediately isolating
him. You will be able to quote lots of silly things Nostrum said, but
these have to be viewed in context -- he was reacting in a situation where
he was literally showered with insults. I don't think he was treated
fairly in this whole affair.
Regards,
Erik